English
The name samhita, however, is no guarantee of the antiquity of these texts, for the junior Vagbhata’s work is also called Astanga- hydaya-samhita. We have further a manuscript called Vararuci- samhita, by Vararuci, and a Siddha-sara-samhita by Ravigupta, son of Durgagupta, which are of comparatively recent date. The Brahma-vaivarta-purana refers to a number of early medical works, such as the Cikitsd-tattva-vijnana of Dhanvantari, Cikitsa-darsana of Divodasa, Cikitsa-kaumudi of Kasiraja, Cikitsa-sara-tantra and Bhrama-ghna of Asvini, Vaidyaka-sarvasva of Nakula, Vyadhi- sindhu-vimardana of Sahadeva, Fianarnava of Yama, Fivadana of Cyavana, Vaidya-sandeha-bhanjana of Janaka, Sarva-sara of Candrasuta, Tantra-sara of Jabala, Vedanga-sara of Jajali, Nidana of Paila, Sarva-dhara of Karatha and Dvaidha-nirnaya-tantra of ? See Dr Cordier’s Récentes Découvertes de MSS. Médicaux Sanscrits dans l’ Inde (1898-1902). bs See Cakrapani’s commentary on Caraka-samhita, 11. 2, also Srikantha on the Siddha-yoga, fvaradhikara. ° Cakrapani’s commentary, 1. 2 and 11. 5, also Srikantha on the Nidana (Ksudra-roga). x11] Ayur-veda Literature 433 Agastya!. But nothing is known of these works, and it is difficult to say if they actually existed. It is well known that there were two Vagbhatas (sometimes spelt Vahata). The earlier Vagbhata knew Caraka and Susruta. It is conjectured by Hoernle and others that the statement of I-tsing (A.D. 675-685), that the eight arts formerly existed in eight books, and that a man had lately epitomized them and made them into one bundle, and that all physicians in the five parts of India practised according to that book, alludes to the Astanga-samgraha of Vagbhata the elder. In that case Vagbhata I must have flourished either late in the sixth century or early in the seventh century; for I-tsing speaks of him as having epitomized the work “‘lately,”’ and on the other hand time must be allowed for the circulation of such a work in the five parts of India. A comparison of Sugruta and Vagbhata I shows that the study of anatomy had almost ceased to exist in the latter’s time. It is very probable that Vagbhata was a Buddhist. The Astarga-samgraha has a commentary by Indu; but before Indu there had been other commentators, whose bad ex- positions were refuted by him?. Madhava, Drdhabala and Vagbhata II all knew Vagbhata I. Madhava mentions him by name and occasionally quotes from him both in the Siddha-yoga and in the Nidana, and so also does Drdhabala®. Hoernle has shown that Drdhabala’s 96 diseases of the eye are based on Vagbhata’s 94. Vagbhata II towards the end of the Uttara-sthana of his Astanga-hrdaya-samhita definitely ex- presses his debt to Vagbhata I. But they must all have flourished before Cakrapani, who often refers to Drdhabala and Vagbhata II. If, as Hoernle has shown, Madhava was anterior to Drdhabala, he also must necessarily have flourished before Cakrapani. Hoernle’s argument that Madhava flourished before Drdhabala rests upon the fact that Susruta counts 76 kinds of eye-diseases, while Vagbhata I has 94. Drdhabala accepts Vagbhata I’s 94 eye-diseases with the addition of two more, added by Madhava, making his list come to 96. Madhava had accepted Susruta’s 76 eye-diseases and 1 Tt is curious to notice that the Brahma-vaivarta-purana makes Dhanvantari, Kasiraja and Divodasa different persons, which is contrary to Susruta’s state- ment noted above. ms 2 Durvyakhya-visa-suptasya Vahatasyasmad-uktayah santu samvitti-dayinyas ‘sad-agama-pariskrta. Indu’s commentary, I. I. 3 Siddha-yoga, 1. 27, Astanga-samgraha, 11. 1, Nidana, 1. 22 and 23, Sam- ‘graha, 1. 266, Caraka-samhita (Jivananda, 1896), Czkitsita-sthdna, xvi. 31, Samgraha, u.26. Again, Ctkitsita-sthana, xvi. 53, etc., Samgraha, 11. 27, etc. Dil 28 434 Speculations in the Medical Schools [cH. added two of his own!. The second point in Hoernle’s argument is that Madhava in his quotations from Caraka always omits the passages marked by Vijayaraksita as Kasmira readings, which Hoernle identifies with the revision work of Drdhabala. These arguments of Hoernle appear very inconclusive; for, if the so-called Kasgmira recension can be identified with Drdhabala’s revision, both Drdhabala’s Kasmira nativity and his posteriority to Madhava can be proved; but this proposition has not been proved. On the other hand, Cakrapani alludes to a Drdhabala samskara side by side with a Kaémira reading, and this seems to indicate that the two are not the same®. The suggestion of Madhava’s anteriority on the ground that he counts 78 eye- diseases is rather far-fetched. Madhava’s date, therefore, cannot be definitely settled. Hoernle is probably correct in holding that Drdhabala is anterior to Vagbhata?. However, the relative an- teriority or posteriority of these three writers does not actually matter very much; for they lived at more or less short intervals from one another and their dates may roughly be assigned to a period between the eighth and tenth centuries A.D. Vagbhata II’s Astanga-hrdaya-samhita has at least five com- mentaries, viz. by Arunadatta (Sarvanga-sundari), Asadhara, Candracandana (Padartha-candrika), Ramanatha and Hemadri (Ayur-veda-rasayana). Of these Arunadatta probably lived in a.p. 1220. Madhava’s Rug-viniscaya, a compendium of pathology, is one of the most popular works of Indian Medicine. It has at least seven commentaries, viz. by Vijayaraksita (Madhu-kosa), Vaidya- vacaspati (Atanka-dipana), Ramanatha Vaidya, Bhavanisahaya, Naganatha (Nidana-pradipa), Ganega Bhisaj and the commentary known as Siddhanta-candrika or Vivarana-siddhanta-candrika, by Narasimha Kaviraja*. Vijayaraksita’s commentary, however, 1 Hoernle thinks that the total number of 76 eye-diseases ordinarily found in the printed editions of Madhava’s Nidaéna is not correct, as they do not actually tally with the descriptions of the different eye-diseases given by Madhava and do not include paksma-kopa and paksma-satd varieties. Hoernle’s “Osteology,”’ p. 13. 2 Cakra’s commentary, I. 7. 46-50. 3 See Hoernle’s ‘‘Osteology,”’ pp. 14-16. 4 Narasimha Kaviraja was the son of Nilakantha Bhatta and the pupil of Ramakrsna Bhatta. He seems to have written another medical work, called Madhu-mati. His Vivarana-siddhanta-candrikad, though based on Vijaya’s Madhu-kosa, is an excellent commentary and contains much that is both instructive and new. The only manuscript available is probably the one that belongs to the family library of the author of the present work, who is preparing an edition of it for publication. XIII] Ayur-veda Literature 435 closes with the 33rd chapter, and the rest of the work was accom- plished by Srikanthadatta, a pupil of Vijayaraksita. Vrnda (who may be the same as Madhava) wrote a Siddha-yoga, a book of medical formulas, well known among medical writers. In connection with this brief account of Indian medical works the Nava-nitaka, and the other mutilated medical treatises which have been discovered in Central Asia and which go by the name of ‘‘Bower manuscript,’ cannot be omitted. This manu- script is written on birch leaves in Gupta characters and is probably as old as the fifth century a.p. It is a Buddhist work, containing many medical formulas taken from Caraka, Susruta and other unknown writers. It will, however, be understood that an elaborate discussion of chronology or an exhaustive account of Indian medical works would be out of place in a work like the present. The Ayur-veda literature, and particularly that part which deals with medical formulas and recipes, medical lexicons and the like, is vast. Aufrecht’s catalogue contains the names of about 1500 manuscript texts, most of which have not yet been published, and there are many other manuscripts not mentioned in Aufrecht’s catalogue. Among the books now much in use may be mentioned the works of Sarngadhara, of the fourteenth century, Sivadasa’s commentary on Cakrapani, of the fifteenth century, and the Bhava-prakasa of Bhavamisra, of the sixteenth. Vangasena’s work is also fairly common. Among ana- tomical texts Bhoja’s work and Bhaskara Bhatta’s Sarira-padmini deserve mention. The Aupadhenava-tantra, Pauskalavata-tantra, Vaitarana-tantra and Bhoja-tantra are alluded to by Dalhana. The Bhdaluki-tantra and Kapila-tantra are mentioned by Cakrapani in his Bhanumati commentary. So much for the anatomical treatises. Videha-tantra, Nimi-tantra, Kankayana-tantra, Satyaki-tantra, Karala-tantra and Krsnatreya-tantra on eye-diseases are alluded to in Srikantha’s commentary on Madhava’s Nidana. The Saunaka- tantra on eye-diseases is named in the commentaries of Cakrapani and Dalhana. The fivaka-tantra, Parvataka-tantra and Bandhaka- tantra are alluded to by Dalhana as works on midwifery. The Hiranyaksya-tantra on the same subject is named by Srikantha, whereas the Kasyapa-samhita and Alambayana-samhita are cited by Srikantha on toxicology. The Usanas-samhita, Sanaka-samhita, -Latyayana-samhita are also mentioned as works on toxicology. Among some of the other important Tantras may be mentioned 28-2 436 Speculations in the Medical Schools —_[cu. xt Nagarjuna’s Yoga-sataka, containing the eight regular divisions of Indian Medicine, and Nagarjuna’s Jiva-siitra and Bhesaja-kalpa, all of which were translated into Tibetan. Three works on the Astanga- hydaya, called Astanga-hydaya-nama-vaidiryaka-bhasya, Padar- tha-candrika-prabhasa-nama, Astanga-hrdaya-vrtti and Vaidyaka- stanga-hrdaya-vrtter bhesaja-nama-sici, were also translated into Tibetan. The Ayur-veda-siitra is a work by Yoganandanatha, published with a commentary by the same author in the Mysore University Sanskrit series in 1922, with an introduction by Dr Shama Sastry.